Does Science Debunk The Bible?

[Data]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #58]

Okay. Fair enough. Physical is defined as relating to the body as opposed to the mind: relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete:,

That is still unacceptable. You are making the same mistake as when you claimed that the wind was "Supernatural"
You are trying to fit nature into an unnecessary conceptual framework.

No, you are trying to fit spirit into an unnecessary conceptual framework. I didn't say the wind was supernatural. I said it was non-physical. Maybe I should have said material. Spirit. Spirit isn't necessarily supernatural. Spirit is anything to us that is invisible but produces visible results. Wind, breath, compelled mental inclination. Mean spirited, high spirited, broken spirit. In the Bible there are spirit beings, like God, Satan, Michael, angels, and physical beings like Moses, Jesus, angels who take on physical form.

The Truth is that we don't know for sure if mind is without physical property but we do know for sure that it affects and effects those more tangible/concrete things (visible to the human senses) so we can deduce from that, mind is a physical thing, and like the wind...we do not see it other than observing what it inflences and thus understand it is physical.

So? What's the point? That's a whole other can of worms, isn't it? I mean we could have that discussion - maybe. I don't know if we would be willing or able to devote the time necessary to do that, but there are all sorts of mythological, theological, Biblical, religious and even psychological variations we would likely have to examine and separate. Which is why it's problematic for even just you and I to begin down that twisting avenue of discussion.

Unless you have some specific meaning of non-physical being something else,...

There is no need to create such a category. "Non physical" simply denotes "does not exist".

Okay. I can agree to that if you want to go that route. But I don't see how that matters unless you can tell me where the Bible says otherwise. Because I don't see where it says that.

[Data]

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Science can't debunk morality because of the is-ought dilemma. In other words, the domain of science is to tell us what is, and the domain of morality is to tell us what ought to be. And that's the end of that oil and water don't mix.

I mean, can you argue that God lies or might/must be lying? Can you argue that he's a bad person? Likes genocide? Vile temperamental piece of omnipotent garbage? Probably doesn't exist? Sure. You might even do so successfully. Let's pretend you've proved all that deductively. But when you cross into a value judgment, you have abandoned science and now have absolutely zero grounds to say that anything God does is wrong.

Science absolutely can't, under any circumstances, define God as immoral. This is true whether God happens to exist irl, or just as a character in a book. The best you can do is appeal to a shared value judgment, which will convince people who share that judgment but it doesn't mean you're right.

I agree you can't argue morality, that God is a good or bad person, likes genocide, or is a vile temperamental person. Subjective. You can argue if he lies or is omnipotent. No to both. Garbage? Subjective. Exist or not? Can't be established for certain.

Modern science would do well to keep itself advised of this, but it doesn't. Judge, jury, and executioner.

Well, I don't think it fair to claim science itself does that, i.e. scientists. People do that by misrepresenting science. Everyone seems to think "science" means something it isn't. The same as you can't claim God is responsible for religion misrepresenting him, or the Bible.

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #61]

In the Bible there are spirit beings, like God, Satan, Michael, angels, and physical beings like Moses, Jesus, angels who take on physical form.

If such entities do exist, then they are physical in nature - even if the proposed argument is these are essentially "minds" which can incarnate into functional forms and even if those minds created said functional forms for that reason. Even if those minds inhabit Galaxies, Stars or Planets.

There is nothing in any of the Bibles books which denote "spirit" as "supernatural" and where "spirit" is mentioned, it appears to be no different than how we think of "mind".

There is no need to create such a category. "Non physical" simply denotes "does not exist".

Okay. I can agree to that if you want to go that route.

It is logical, so the best route to take.

But I don't see how that matters unless you can tell me where the Bible says otherwise.

What does the Bible say about things which do not exist?

Because I don't see where it says that.

I don't know where in the Bible the subject of "non-physical" is mentioned. If you think that it does, then point it out.

Something cannot logically be created from nothing and in the same way, something with no physical properties cannot logically influence anything physical.

This would mean that any creator mind has to be a physical thing, able to interacted with the physical things it creates.

[alexxcJRO]

No Science does debunk the Bible.

For the purpose of this debate science is defined as the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained; a branch of knowledge; a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject and even knowledge of any kind. Debunk is defined as to expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief) as well as to reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), especially by ridicule.

Question for debate: Is this true? Does science debunk the Bible and if so, how?

Here I selected just 3 for you sir:

Bible: God created two earth golems and with a magical incantation he imbued them with life.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: Homo Sapiens Sapiens appeared few hundreds of thousands of years ago through a natural process called Evolution.

Bible: God killed all humans except Noah and his families in a global flood.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: It did not happened. Multiple entire scientific fields show otherwise.

Bible: God made everyone speak different languages in the story of the Tower of Babel.
Wrong! Its a myth.
Science: The linguistic evidence proves otherwise.

Enjoy!

Do you realize that, speaking on behalf of science, you give no evidence, only opinion? Saying it is true because you say science says it's true is like me saying it isn't true because the Bible says it isn't true.

You are correct positive claims require positive evidence.
I have made some positive claims and need to provide the evidence.
Here is the evidence for one of the positive claim:

1. We have morphological evidence and transitional fossils.
Evolution of tetrapods from fish.





Evolution of whales from previous walking mammals.




Evolution of birds from dinosaurus.



Evolution of humans from previous humanoids forms.




2. We have plenty evidence of speciation. Observational evidence:
-"Galapagos finches. Charles Darwin, who first studied the finch populations on the Galapagos Islands, believed that speciation required hundreds or even thousands of generations. Yet a remarkable instance of speciation has just been observed among these finches. In 1981 researchers observed a single male finch, normally residing on either Espanola or Gardner Island, on the Island Daphne Major. To their surprise, within two generations a hybrid species had taken hold, exclusively breeding only with other finches descended from the original male [Cepelewicz2017].

-Salamanders. Ensatina eschscholtzi is a lungless salamander that ranges along the Pacific Coast from Canada to Mexico. Within this population, seven “subspecies” have been recognized in a ring around the Central Valley of California. About 35 miles southeast of Mount Palomar, near Cuyamaca State Park, these subspecies meet and fail to interbreed — in other words, the two subspecies in this area are different species by the usual definition of the term [Wake1986; Wake2001].

-Killer whales. In 2010 British researchers announced that two different types of killer whales (orcas) had been identified in the waters near the U.K. Each type differs somewhat in size and diet, and genetic analysis indicates that the two types belong to different populations that are in the process of becoming different species [Bourton2010]. More recently (April 2010), researchers confirmed that in fact there are three distinct populations of orcas whose DNA is sufficiently distinct that the three groups could be considered distinct species [Wade2010].

-Nicaraguan fish. In a 2010 study, researchers have found that fish in a remote crater lake in Nicaragua are rapidly splitting into separate species. In just 100 generations (over roughly 100 years), one group has developed very fat lips. The fat-lipped fish occupy a different ecological niche from the thin-lipped variety, even though they live together in the same lake — the fat-lipped group prefers insects, while the thin-lipped group prefers snails. The fish do not mate with members of the other group in the wild, although lab experiments show that they still can interbreed. The fact that they do not intermix in the wild indicates that they are in the process of becoming separate species [Coghlan2010a].

-Drosophila flies in Hawaii. Similar “sister species” of Drosophila flies have been found in Hawaii. In other words, these are closely related corresponding species that are found on different islands in the Hawaiian Island chain, which evidently split in recent geologic history. In this case, the dates of the speciation events have been determined by analyzing the flies’ DNA. As scientists had predicted, the oldest species have been found on the oldest islands [Coyne2009, pg. 181].

-Malaria-bearing mosquitos. A 2010 study of two strains of the Anopheles gambiae mosquito, which are the principal carriers of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa, has verified that these strains have diverged so much genetically that even though they still look exactly the same, they are now, in effect, two distinct species (e.g., because they no longer interbreed) [Nordqvist2010]. As the researchers who performed this study note, “From our new studies, we can see that mosquitoes are evolving more quickly than we thought and that unfortunately, strategies that might work against one strain of mosquito might not be effective against another. It’s important to identify and monitor these hidden genetic changes in mosquitoes if we are to succeed in bringing malaria under control by targeting mosquitoes.” [Neafsey2010].

-Stickleback fish in Alaska. In 1990, biologist Michael Bell found to his surprise that marine stickleback fish had recolonized Loberg Lake in Alaska, after being exterminated in 1982. What’s more, a few of these fish had developed features more typical of fresh water stickleback species, such as loss of body armor and changes in feeding structures in the throat. He and his team have returned to the lake each year since then and have documented a steady increase in the percentage of fresh-water-typical features. For instance, Bell and his graduate student Windsor Aguirre have observed that the lake fish population has changed from mostly 30 or more armor plates per side to mostly between five and eight plates per side. As Bell notes, “it has become clear that populations can evolve substantially on contemporary time scales and that the magnitude of evolutionary divergence between ancestral and descendant populations can be comparable to differences among related species” [Bell2004; LePage2011]. Here are photos of a typical marine stickleback (top) and two typical Loberg Lake stickleback (bottom), courtesy Michael Bell:
image #1

Stickleback fish in Switzerland. In yet another example of speciation of stickleback fish, researchers at the University of Bern have found that a population of these fish in Switzerland’s Lake Constance, which was only introduced roughly 150 years ago, appears to have split into two species — one lives in the main lake, and the other lives in streams flowing into the lake. The lake fish are generally larger, and have longer spines and tougher armor. The researchers confirmed that it was speciation, not just lifestyle, by noting clear genetic differences between the two populations [LePage2016]."
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/20 ... olution-2/

3. We have evidence of populations evolving and acquiring novel functions and novel structures (ex: FtsZ protein, bacteria developing ‘molecular scissors’ that degrades PET, clepto sea slugs steal genes from their food and incorporate them into their own DNA).

4. We have DNA evidence
-increase information in the genome: crossing over (genetic error when two chromosomes are misaligned and exchange strands of DNA will produce duplication of information in one of the chromosome ), evolution of corticoid steroids hormone receptor (ancient fish had one generic receptor or a corticosteroid precursor: deoxy corticosteroid; this receptor was duplicate d and then over a long time by small changes in their aminoacid sequence they specificity was tightened up so now only one binds with cortisol and the other only binds to aldosterone).



"-Comparisons of beta globin among species. One example of DNA-type data is comparisons of the 146-unit amino acid sequences of beta globin (a component of hemoglobin in blood) among various species of animals. Amino acids are coded directly by triplets of DNA letters, and thus the study of amino acid sequences is very close to the study of DNA sequences themselves. As it turns out, human beta globin is identical to that of chimpanzees, differs in only one location from that of gorillas, yet is increasingly distinct from that in red foxes, polar bears, horses, rats, chicken and salmon. For details, see the table at DNA.

-Mutations. The picture is the same if we consider the pattern of mutations between closely related species. For example, the gene that, when mutated, results in cystic fibrosis in humans is nearly identical to the corresponding gene in chimpanzees, but is progressively less similar to the corresponding gene in orangutans, baboons, marmosets, lemurs, mice, chicken and puffer fish [NAS2008, pg. 30]. As yet another example, cytochrome c, which is essential for cell respiration, differs only in one location out of 104 between humans and rhesus monkeys.

-Comparing humans and horses, there as 12 differences; comparing rhesus monkeys with horses, there are 11 differences. Evidently the single difference between humans and rhesus monkeys occurred after our hominid ancestors split from the lineage that led to present-day monkeys [Ayala2007, pg. 128-129].

-GULO gene for Vitamin C. The “GULO” gene is an essential part of the machinery that makes Vitamin C in most animals. Unfortunately, humans and other great apes lack a functioning copy of this gene — our copy is a highly mutated fragment, classified as a relic gene or pseudogene. Scurvy, that scourge of British seamen, Mormon pioneers crossing the Great Plains, and millions in poor regions worldwide even today, results when humans don’t get enough Vitamin C in their diets to compensate for the lack of a functioning GULO gene. Interestingly, although the GULO pseudogene is highly mutated and utterly useless, the human and chimp versions of this gene are 98% identical. Evidently a common ancestor of humans and chimps adopted a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, and thus a chance mutation that disabled Vitamin C production was no longer a fatal one and was passed on to posterity [Fairbanks2007, pg. 53-55; Coyne2009, pg. 67-69].
Along this line, the mutated and useless human GULO gene is an effective refutation of the claim by many creationist and intelligent design writers that each individual species was meticulously designed. After all, it would be strange indeed to insist that a Supreme Being “designed” humans with such a glaring defect, and it would be downright blasphemous to insist that this Being then copied this defect to several other primate species. Many more examples of this sort could be cited — see Design.

-Transposons. Transposons or “jumping genes” are sections of DNA that have been “copied” from one part of an organism’s genome and “pasted” seemingly at random in other locations. The human genome, for example, has over four million individual transposons, organized in over 800 families [Mills2007]. In most cases transposons do no harm, because they “land” in an unused section of DNA, but because they are inherited they serve as excellent markers for genetic studies. Indeed, transposons have been used to classify a large number of vertebrate species into a family tree, with a result that is virtually identical to what biologists had earlier reckoned based only physical features and biological functions [Rogers2011, pg. 25-31, 86-92]. As just one example, consider the following table, where columns labeled ABCDE denote five blocks of transposons, and x and o denote that the block is present or absent in the genome [Rogers2011, pg. 89].
Transposon blocks

It is clear from these data that our closest primate relatives are chimpanzees and bonobos. As another example, here is a classification of four cetaceans (ocean mammals) based on transposon data [Rogers2011, pg. 27]:

Transposon blocks

-Other examples could be listed, encompassing an even broader range of species [Rogers2011, pg. 25-31, 86-92]. For other, even more compelling details and additional discussion, see DNA.

-Chromosome fusion in humans. Biologists noted long ago that humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas other great apes — chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans — have 24. Thus they were led to conjecture that two of the human chromosomes have fused since the split between ancestral human and ape lineages. This hypothesis gained credence in 1982, when scientists found that chromosomes from humans, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are highly similar and can be aligned with one another, with human chromosome #2 corresponding to the slightly overlapped union of ape chromosomes 2A and 2B (graphic credit: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada):


The final confirmation came in 1991 from a detailed analysis of human DNA, which found two complementary telomeres (repeated sequences of a certain DNA string that appear at the end of a chromosome) spanning the exact spot of union [Fairbanks2007, pg. 20-27; Fairbanks2012, pg. 135-139]:

Fusion site
|

(Note that the second row is almost exactly a reversal of the first, pivoted about the fusion site.) Numerous other similar examples are given in Fairbank’s book Evolution: The Human Effect and Why It Matters [Fairbanks2012].

The genetic code and evolution. Although the “genetic code,” namely the system of assigning 3-letter DNA sequences to one of the 20 amino acids employed in biology, is universal over almost all the biological kingdom, there are a few exceptions. For example, mitochondria, the little “islands” within a cell that generate most of the cell’s chemical energy, employ a slightly different version. In total, scientists have by now identified 34 different codes in the biological kingdom. Yet, as biologist Kenneth Miller observes, these variant genetic codes are all neatly arranged in a hierarchical pattern, like variant dialects of English, which pattern is compelling evidence for their common ancestry [Miller2001; Zimmer2013].
DNA data and the human-chimpanzee split. Researchers are also combining analyses of DNA sequences with paleontological (fossil) data, resulting in more precise determinations of various branches in the tree of life. For example, a study published in November 2010 that combined both paleontological and molecular data established that divergence of humans and chimpanzees very likely took place roughly eight million years ago, instead of five to six million years as generally believed until recently [SD2010d; Wilkinson2010]. In November 2012, a new study observed a rate of 36 new mutations per human generation (half the earlier estimate), which was obtained from whole-genome DNA sequencing of 78 persons and their biological parents. As a result of such analyses, the current consensus is that the human-chimpanzee split occurred between 7 and 13 million years ago [Brahic2012].
DNA and phylogenetics. Researchers are analyzing DNA of groups of existing species to reconstruct their “family tree.” Soon much of evolutionary history will be deducible purely from this type of automatic computer-based analysis. For example, in May 2010 a researcher announced, on the basis of a very carefully performed statistical analysis, that the hypothesis of a “universal common ancestor” hypothesis (a conjecture, dating back to Charles Darwin, that all life arose from a single common ancestral species) is at least 102860 times more likely to have produced the modern-day protein sequences that we observe in living organisms, compared to the next most probable scenario that involves multiple original ancestral species [Harmon2010; Theobald2010]."
https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/20 ... olution-2/

Enjoy!

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you. Evidence of speciation does undermine the Biblical claim that God made all the critters pretty much as they are now. I'd say just the whale skeleton and fossils show compelling evidence of speciation, which of course validates the others that could be argued about. It effectively trashes the usual anti -evolution arguments about gaps, problems or arguable areas. Prove one change from a land animal to one adapted to water and the case for speciation is made, and carries Tiktaalik, Bird morphology and humans along with it. Quibbles about remaining unknowns, not to mention denial of the evidence become irrelevant.

The attempt to make a case for a god (name your own, of course, can't be repeated enough) using evolution was struck down first in science when using the bacterial flagellum as an example of IC (an evolutionary process that could not work without God doing a miracle, in fact) was debunked by showing that an organic feature could adapt for a different purpose while still doing the old function. The funny thing is that even though IC only argues that evolution needs God to work, the Creationists seemed to think it disproved evolution, which it doesn't. Thus at the Dover trial it was ruled that IC and ID were not scientific but Creationism, which is religious belief.

It's terribly often the case that Creationists do not understand the science they are attempting to disprove. A notorious goof was denying the age of the universe because if it was so old, the light from the stars could not have arrived here by now. They do not understand that light is particles that started on their journey here as soon as the light - source was made and is there to be observed as surely as a meteor that has been around for millions of years becoming visible when it arrives here. But another flub was the genetic barrier and interbreeding. The creationists could never seem to get that evolution theory is nothing to do with interbreeding between species but the gradual change OF species. It is amusing that Creationists accept evolutionary change, but only within a species. It may change a bit but still remains recognisably the same'kind'of critter. There is no such genetic barrier in DNA.

Which is why Whale evolution from a land animal to a sea creature makes the speciation -case. Just once, and it validates all.

Science does debunk the Bible. Denial does not debunk science.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #61]

In the Bible there are spirit beings, like God, Satan, Michael, angels, and physical beings like Moses, Jesus, angels who take on physical form.

If such entities do exist, then they are physical in nature - even if the proposed argument is these are essentially "minds" which can incarnate into functional forms and even if those minds created said functional forms for that reason. Even if those minds inhabit Galaxies, Stars or Planets.

What in the world are you talking about? The Debate question is does science debunk the Bible? What does any of the above have to do with anything? What is mind? Oxford: "the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought: intellect. Attention." Ephesians 4:23: to be renewed in the spirit (pneumatic; wind, breath, spirit) of your minds (noos; intellect, i.e. mind); 1 Corinthians 2:16: "For who has known the mind of the Lord Jehovah that he may teach him? But we do have the mind of The Messiah."

I don't know anything about how, why or what your intended concept of the mind is, but it isn't relevant as far as I can tell. The mind isn't physical? Or is the mind physical? It is "non-physical." So? Does the "non-physical" exist? Intellect, love, hate, anger, attention, memory et cetera. Minds aren't sentient beings in the common use of the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or modern English. Unless you are using some variation of "mind" I'm not familiar with. A metaphor or personification, perhaps? I can't argue what "mind" is or isn't until I know what way, why and how you're are using it. [sighs: since I always have to do all the work, even when I'm talking to an intelligent person such as William]* I guess we have to look at definition, variation, the ideological, idiomatic and etymology. I'm just going to give a quick, simple example of how this works and then explain how it is significant to our discussion. An old person may use the archaic application of the word gay or queer without meaning the other more contemporary modern application. For our discussion (or any discussion I have, even though I can't always make it apparent) I have no objection to what you may say mind or spirit is. Nor to what science, psychology, theology, God or anyone else may say what it means to them, but my primary concern, in discussions like this, is what the Bible says and means. Often that means distinguishing between the variations.

So, Oxford says of spirit: "the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul:" and that's fine, but it isn't what the Bible means by spirit.

There is nothing in any of the Bibles books which denote "spirit" as "supernatural" and where "spirit" is mentioned, it appears to be no different than how we think of "mind".

No. Maybe. If. Spirit is an English word just as "mind" is an English word. In the Bible spirit can be natural (wind, breath, compelled mental inclination) or supernatural (God, angels, demons, seraphs, cherub, holy spirit).

I don't know where in the Bible the subject of "non-physical" is mentioned. If you think that it does, then point it out.

The Hebrew word bara and the Greek word ktizo mean create, which means to bring into existence. So, until 1917 when the Finnish inventor Eric Tigerstedt successfully filed a patent for the mobile phone, they didn't exist. Likewise, according to the Bible, until the universe was created by Jehovah God, it didn't exist.

What do these facts mean?

Something cannot logically be created from nothing and in the same way, something with no physical properties cannot logically influence anything physical.

Okay, then, you are arguing that? So? I care about the Bible. I don't care about "logic," "science," or "physical" until you propose that they contradict one another. And then my first inclination is to think "who cares?" Science, logic, the Bible are fallible. Subject to interpretation and possible change. My second inclination is to think what is the difference? Either literally or interpretationally? I just don't care what nothing is or what we think it is or if it ever existed or how it never existed.

I uh . . . [ahem] I don't care about nothing. Make me care, William! Tell me if and why I should care.

This would mean that any creator mind has to be a physical thing, able to interacted with the physical things it creates.

Okay. So?

[* there appears to be nothing here! How is that possible? Was nothing created? Have I created nothing from something?]

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #66]

I don't know where in the Bible the subject of "non-physical" is mentioned. If you think that it does, then point it out.

The Hebrew word bara and the Greek word ktizo mean create, which means to bring into existence. So, until 1917 when the Finnish inventor Eric Tigerstedt successfully filed a patent for the mobile phone, they didn't exist. Likewise, according to the Bible, until the universe was created by Jehovah God, it didn't exist.

Until vowels were added, the word "Jehovah" did not exist either.

What do these facts mean?

Created things (functional forms) are made from physical material.
This is to say that if a Creator-God made the universe, it did so using available material.
It also means that the physical substance used, had to have derived from the Creator-God itself.

Okay, then, you are arguing that? So? I care about the Bible. I don't care about "logic," "science," or "physical" until you propose that they contradict one another.

I don't know if the Bible contradicts that everything (including the supposed "non-physical" many religious folk believe exist) is made of something.

The way I understand it, "science" is a process of elimination.

In that, if the claim was "The Creator-God is non-physical" then the presumption leads one to a point where the idea that a non-physical Creator-God can influence the Almighty Universe to the point of its current overall form (trillions of Galaxies as far as the eye can see) becomes an absurd concept. Adding to that "just because we do not understand how a non-physical being is able to shape and influence physical stuff, doesn't mean it isn't possible" doesn't help the claim for the supposed non-physical Creator-God actually existing. More to the point, it is simply a "gotcha" which supernaturalism uses against materialism, because physical science "can't touch that."

So the ensuring arguments from both positions become an unresolvable standoff. A stalemate.

Pointless, in other words.

Either literally or interpretationally? I just don't care what nothing is or what we think it is or if it ever existed or how it never existed.

If one is going to argue the Bible-God is a non-physical Creator-God, one would be best to "care".

Elimination.
IF
God created the universe out of nothing.
THEN
Something (referred to as "nothing") exists outside of God.

Further to that, this apparent "nothing" is actually physical and can be shaped into functional forms.

If we then argue that the God created the "nothing" which is really "something" and used it to shape forms (other "somethings") from, then we are being silly with our concepts and subsequent labels.

This would mean that any creator mind has to be a physical thing, able to interacted with the physical things it creates.

Okay. So?

So, it is best to refrain from claiming that "supernatural" actually exists (as anything other than a poorly defined concept) and that the Creator-God is non-physical (supernatural) and develop better concepts which explain/define how a Creator-God can shape matter into functional form.


____________

Creator-God: Why do humans have intuition?

Me: Good question. Perhaps it is evidence of "tapping into" the unknown depths of mind?

Creator-God: You wrote;
“I think that superposition and quantum entanglement are part of the "something" and that they are thought of as strange, has to do with observations of the behavior of things not regarded as strange - whereas - the idea of "everything that exists coming from something which doesn't exist" does fit into "logical absurdity" in that we do not observe anything coming from nothing, nor can we observe 'nothing' in any fundamental manner.

Therefore, I do not see how we should treat these things in a similar fashion.

Even if we accepted that the existence of this universe is a "logical absurdity" - I still don't think we can treat the idea of nothing bringing it into existence as logical or sensible.”

Me: I still agree with what I wrote.

Creator-God: Develop better concepts which explain/define how a Creator-God can shape matter into functional form.
Hacking through the subconscious
Become more expansive.
If the universe did still exist without consciousness, it may as well not. For who would point at it and say "There it is!"?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #66]

I don't know where in the Bible the subject of "non-physical" is mentioned. If you think that it does, then point it out.

The Hebrew word bara and the Greek word ktizo mean create, which means to bring into existence. So, until 1917 when the Finnish inventor Eric Tigerstedt successfully filed a patent for the mobile phone, they didn't exist. Likewise, according to the Bible, until the universe was created by Jehovah God, it didn't exist.

Until vowels were added, the word "Jehovah" did not exist either.

Not really. But it doesn't matter because it's just a word. The vowels weren't printed they were spoken. And in Hebrew, the English wouldn't come until much later. In Italian it's Geova, in Romanian Iehova, in Russian Iyegova etc.

Created things (functional forms) are made from physical material.
This is to say that if a Creator-God made the universe, it did so using available material.
It also means that the physical substance used, had to have derived from the Creator-God itself.

Okay. So? First of all, you really don't know that. You base it on some quasi-science that says energy and matter can't be created. Atomic bomb ring a bell? C'mon. And anyway, if the limits you think your scientific awareness has the merit to impose upon the creator were true, then that's the way it happened. So? I mean, what do you want from me?

I don't know if the Bible contradicts that everything (including the supposed "non-physical" many religious folk believe exist) is made of something.

The way I understand it, "science" is a process of elimination.

Well, then, in some small detail science has illuminated the concept of matter and energy not being able to be destroyed in the case of the Atom bomb, correct?

In that, if the claim was "The Creator-God is non-physical" then the presumption leads one to a point where the idea that a non-physical Creator-God can influence the Almighty Universe to the point of its current overall form (trillions of Galaxies as far as the eye can see) becomes an absurd concept.

As far as the eye can see isn't enough, dude. That's part of the problem. Another part is who said the Creator God is nonphysical and what does that even mean? Energy? Is that scripturally realistic? Certainly more than nonphysical. The Almighty Universe? [sighs]

You just seem to be taking concepts you aren't particularly conversant of and giving them a twist of modern academia(?) to draw a conclusion about something that isn't the thing you're talking about in the first place. Either intentionally for your own entertainment or inadvertently through your own ignorance as far as I can tell. That's what I'm getting out of this. I could be wrong, but that's my take on it as of now.

Where, if certainly not the Bible, does the concept of nonphysical God come from and what does it mean? Just answer the question.

Adding to that "just because we do not understand how a non-physical being is able to shape and influence physical stuff, doesn't mean it isn't possible" doesn't help the claim for the supposed non-physical Creator-God actually existing. More to the point, it is simply a "gotcha" which supernaturalism uses against materialism, because physical science "can't touch that."

So the ensuring arguments from both positions become an unresolvable standoff. A stalemate.

Pointless, in other words.

Finally, we agree on something. What that is I don't know, but at least we agree.

If one is going to argue the Bible-God is a non-physical Creator-God, one would be best to "care".

If I see anyone doing that, I'll let them know.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #66]
Elimination.
IF
God created the universe out of nothing.
THEN
Something (referred to as "nothing") exists outside of God.

The thing is I can't argue that. I'm not knocking it or disagreeing with it I'm just saying I can't argue with it until we agree what something, nothing and God are. If you say, for example, that God is energy or God is physical or God is nonphysical I can't argue with it because all I know about what is God is in the Bible. The specific God, Jehovah which we are talking about. I can say he is spirit, which only means we can't see him and I can say the physical universe, the heavens, is material and he created it. It doesn't matter to me if God is an eggplant and the universe is a product of his imagination. That would seem silly to me, but it doesn't matter because all I know is what I've said.

Further to that, this apparent "nothing" is actually physical and can be shaped into functional forms.

If we then argue that the God created the "nothing" which is really "something" and used it to shape forms (other "somethings") from, then we are being silly with our concepts and subsequent labels.

But we are silly. There are colors and germs and galaxies we can't see, sounds we can't hear, things we can't sense. We can't sense wet. Does that mean wet is nothing? Could be. All the things I mention can be, in a sense, nothing. I just see this discussion as a philosophical conundrum that depends on two pedantic jesters exchanging riddles like barbs and they don't know what the hell they are talking about.

So, it is best to refrain from claiming that "supernatural" actually exists (as anything other than a poorly defined concept) and that the Creator-God is non-physical (supernatural) and develop better concepts which explain/define how a Creator-God can shape matter into functional form.

Whatever.

Creator-God: Why do humans have intuition?

Me: Good question. Perhaps it is evidence of "tapping into" the unknown depths of mind?

Creator-God: You wrote;
“I think that superposition and quantum entanglement are part of the "something" and that they are thought of as strange, has to do with observations of the behavior of things not regarded as strange - whereas - the idea of "everything that exists coming from something which doesn't exist" does fit into "logical absurdity" in that we do not observe anything coming from nothing, nor can we observe 'nothing' in any fundamental manner.

Therefore, I do not see how we should treat these things in a similar fashion.

Even if we accepted that the existence of this universe is a "logical absurdity" - I still don't think we can treat the idea of nothing bringing it into existence as logical or sensible.”

Me: I still agree with what I wrote.

Creator-God: Develop better concepts which explain/define how a Creator-God can shape matter into functional form.
Hacking through the subconscious
Become more expansive.
If the universe did still exist without consciousness, it may as well not. For who would point at it and say "There it is!"?

Okay. Whatever. I don't know what to say. If I saw a dog turd on the sidewalk I would find it more interesting or relevant. That's just me. Never was one for philosophy.

[otseng]

If I saw a dog turd on the sidewalk I would find it more interesting or relevant.

Moderator Final Warning

Please leave out the uncivil comments.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.